Special issue on climate change, greenhouse gas accounting, auditing and accountability
Article Type: Call for papers From: Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Volume 22, Issue 5
Guest Editors
Amanda Ball, College of Business and Economics, University of Canterbury, New ZealandMarkus J. Milne, College of Business and Economics, University of Canterbury, New ZealandSuzana Grubnic, Nottingham University Business School, UK
Climate change now occupies centre-stage politically in many countries (Gore,2006; Stern, 2006; IPCC, 2007). The scientific consensus is that climate warming is ``very likely'' due to the excessive Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions of industrial activity (IPCC, 2007; Oreskes, 2004). International policy goals to avert runaway climate change include suggested targets for stabilising atmospheric GHG concentration with emission cuts of 80-90 per cent by 2050(IPCC, 2007; Stern, 2008). Most countries are committed to modest reductions in GHG emissions under the Kyoto protocol. In tandem with a major international policy focus on carbon pricing and trading (Stern, 2008), predominant climate change strategies for governments, businesses and individuals across industrialised societies include carbon- neutrality, energy and energy conservation strategies, and emissions trading schemes. An international voluntary carbon offset market has burgeoned (EM/NCF, 2008) in response to businesses and individuals purchasing carbon credits to go carbon-neutral(Bumpus and Liverman, 2008). Accounting, technical and ethical critiques,however, are appearing about the efficacy of these practices (e.g. Lohmann,2005; Smith, 2007); emerging codes of conduct and voluntary standards are creating potential confusion (Lovell et al., 2008); and scaling up offsetting to the levels required is questioned (e.g. Smith and Rodger, 2007).
Despite burgeoning practice, there is a dearth of academic debate about organisational climate change strategies, and particularly with regard to organisational motives, commitments, actions and accountabilities, and the role that carbon accounting and auditing play in these. There is a complete absence of ``carbon accounting'' studies in the social and environmental accounting literature (Gray et al., 2007). To date, there are a small number of relevant studies in the organisations literature, with early research noting active political resistance and climate change denial (e.g. Levy and Egan, 2003;Livesey, 2002). Businesses are now engaging in various programmes, with measures, targets and market trading (e.g. Begg et al., 2005; Kolk and Pinkse,2004, 2005; Hoffman, 2006), spawning business interest in strategy,opportunities and ``how-to'' guides (e.g. Harvard Business Review, special issue, 2007; Hoffman, 2006). So far, however, little work has attempted to understand the actual dynamics of organisational emissions reduction programmes,key motives that drive or inhibit action (Okereke, 2007), or critically scrutinise obvious tensions and paradoxical motives between organisational desires to reduce ecological impacts and desires to grow and succeed economically. Despite the growing tide of corporate activity on climate change no meaningful progress is being made on global GHG emissions reduction,suggesting relatively weak policy regimes and ``business-as-usual'' (Jones and Levy, 2007). This Special Issue seeks a range of papers from a variety of social science disciplines that address these shortcomings.
Special Issue paper submission deadline: 31 December 2009
Submissions: to Professor Amanda Ball, e-mail: amanda.ball@canterbury.ac.nzor Professor Markus J. Milne, e-mail: markus.milne@canterbury.ac.nzUniversity of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Papers available earlier are invited for presentation at a GHG measurement,management and sense-making stream of the 8th Australasian CSEAR Conference 2009, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, December 6-8.See: www.bsec.canterbury.ac.nz/csear2009/
